Land Use Planning in Pennsylvania
8. Barriers to Effective
Planning in Pennsylvania
College of Agricultural Sciences
Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension
This Penn State Cooperative
Extension publication is one in a
series of bulletins intended to help
you better understand the current
use of land use planning tools in
Pennsylvania. The series uses
information from a comprehensive
study of Pennsylvania land use
regulation and planning, which was
made possible in part by a grant
from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative agency of the
Pennsylvania General Assembly.
The comprehensive land use study
involved three separate but related
surveys that were conducted in late
1999. The first and largest survey
was sent to all 2,511 boroughs and
townships in Pennsylvania. Fortytwo percent, 1,057 of these surveys,
were returned. The second survey
was sent to all 65 planning directors in Pennsylvania (with the
Land use planning and regulation is
an important concern in many
Pennsylvania communities. Planning
can help local jurisdictions manage
conflicts over land uses in their
community, provide public services in
a cost-effective manner, maintain the
local quality of life, and create an
environment that allows businesses to
grow and thrive.
There is widespread recognition that
land use planning and regulation in
Pennsylvania is not as effective as it
could be. Policy discussions at the
state and local level have focused on
trying to improve local land use
planning. In 2000, the Commonwealth modified the Municipalities
Planning Code (which provides the
general rules and framework for
planning in Pennsylvania), through
Acts 67, 68, and 127, to address some
perceived land use planning problems.
Such policy discussions and actions
must recognize and understand the
barriers currently limiting the effectiveness of land use planning, or they
likely will have minimal effect.
exception of Philadelphia County).
Fifty-four surveys were returned,
for a response rate of 83 percent.
The third survey was sent to all 395
members of the American Institute
of Certified Planners who are listed
in Pennsylvania. Of these, 181 were
returned, for a response rate of 46
percent. The three surveys provide
a composite overview of planning
effectiveness from a variety of
perspectives.
Most of the tables in this publication use data from the state or
regional level. For county-level
results, visit the Land Use Planning
in Pennsylvania Web site at
http://cax.aers.psu.edu/planning/
2
The perspectives of planners and local
officials are crucial to understanding
the barriers to effective land use
planning and regulation in Pennsylvania. These individuals are in a unique
position to consider the effectiveness
of land use planning, and to know
why it may be constrained or ineffectual. Land use planners and local
officials have direct experience with
developing and implementing plans
under the Pennsylvania Municipalities
Planning Code (MPC). Furthermore,
planners’ professional training gives
them additional insight into the
constraints on improved planning in
Pennsylvania.
The potential barriers to effective
planning fall into a variety of categories. There are statutory barriers
related to the authority granted under
the MPC. Another barrier category is
planning operations, such as the
relationship of plans and ordinances.
Some barriers involve resources for
planning, such as funding for planning programs. Lack of knowledge of
planning practice and local attitudes
are other categories of potential
barriers.
The three surveys described at left
provide a composite overview of
planning effectiveness from a variety
of perspectives. As part of the surveys,
county planning directors and American Institute of Certified Planners
(AICP) members were asked to score
the barriers they saw to effective
planning and land use regulations in
the Commonwealth. In addition, all
three survey groups were asked to
score the usefulness of actions that
could be taken to overcome the
barriers they saw.
Despite this publication’s focus on
county planning directors and AICP
members, it is important to recognize
that planning is a collaborative activity
that involves multiple stakeholders,
such as service providers, local businesses, developers, and interested
citizens. These various stakeholder
groups likely view the barriers to
effectiveness from different perspectives.
What Are the Barriers?
County Planning Directors’
Perspective
The county planning directors were
asked which factors they believed to
be barriers to effective planning, and
then which of these were the most
significant, second most significant,
and third most significant. The 54
directors were most likely to identify
as barriers limited funding of planning
operations, and limited support,
understanding, interest, and demand
for planning by elected officials, with
each being mentioned by 70 percent
of the respondents (see Table 1). The
county planning directors viewed
limited support, understanding,
interest, and demand for planning by
elected officials as the more critical of
Table 1. County Planning Directors: Barriers to Effective Planning, and Ranking of 3 Most Significant Barriers
Percent
saying
it was a
barrier
How significant a barrier is it? (Percent of all respondents)
Most
Significant
Second most
significant
Limited support/understanding/interest/
demand for planning by elected officials
70%
23%
13%
Limited funds for planning
70
15
12
12
39
Limited support/understanding/interest/
demand for planning by general public
69
2
8
10
20
Lack of training in planning & land use
regulations by elected officials
65
2
8
2
12
Lack of leadership from elected officials
61
15
6
10
31
Distrust between municipalities
57
2
12
6
20
Failure to use the comprehensive plan in
making decisions
56
6
0
4
10
Distrust between municipalities and the
county
54
2
4
0
6
Lack of training in planning & land use
regulations by planning commissioners
54
0
2
10
12
Lack of professional staff
50
13
6
10
29
Lack of training in planning & land use
regulations by zoning hearing boards
50
0
0
2
2
Strong property rights attitudes
48
6
10
8
24
Lack of training in planning & land use
regulations by zoning administrators
48
2
0
2
4
Lack of other assistance to support planning
44
6
12
2
20
Poor administration of zoning ordinances
39
2
0
0
2
Lack of coordination with water & sewer
authorities
39
0
2
6
8
Poor advice from solicitors, managers,
professional planners, other advisers
33
0
4
8
12
Inconsistencies between county & municipal
comprehensive plans
28
0
2
2
4
Barrier
Third most
significant
4%
Among top 3
barriers
40%
3
these two barriers. Twenty-three
percent of all respondents said it was
the most significant barrier to effective
planning. Only 15 percent of all
respondents, in contrast, identified
limited funding as the most significant
barrier (see Table 1). These two
barriers are undoubtedly intertwined;
lack of interest by local officials leads
to lack of funding. The county
planning directors may be sensitive to
funding issues because, as mentioned
in the bulletin on county planning
agencies, 69 percent of the county
planning directors thought their
agency was understaffed.
Lack of leadership from elected
officials is related to limited support
for planning, and was cited by 61
percent of the directors. It was rated as
the most significant barrier by 15
percent of all respondents (another 16
percent rated it as the second or third
most significant barrier). Similarly,
lack of professional staff was rated
significant by a relatively large number
of respondents.
The general public’s lack of support
and demand for planning was identified as a barrier by 69 percent of the
county planning directors. Such
support does not appear to be a
critical barrier, however, despite this
wide recognition by the planning
directors. Only 2 percent of the
directors thought this was the most
significant barrier, and only another
18 percent thought it was the second
(8 percent) or third (10 percent) most
significant barrier to effective planning.
4
Another commonly cited barrier was
lack of training, including training of
elected officials (65 percent), planning
commissioners (54 percent), zoning
hearing boards (50 percent), and
zoning administrators (48 percent).
Yet, the county planning directors did
not view these barriers as the most
significant.
What Are the Barriers?
AICP Members
The Pennsylvania members of the
American Institute of Certified
Planners also were asked to rate the
importance of different barriers to
planning effectiveness. Their responses
were somewhat similar to those of the
county planning directors. The AICP
membership rated the lack of leadership by local officials as the top barrier
to effective planning (see Table 2).
Elected officials’ lack of understanding
of how to use planning and regulations was second. The third and
fourth highest-rated barriers, planning
not being integrated with the local
decision-making process, and planning not being tied to the budget
process, can be considered the result
of local officials’ not understanding
how to use planning (which was the
serial barrier). These responses are
consistent with the low frequency of
use of comprehensive plans reported
by the municipal officials (see extension bulletin no. 4, “Comprehensive
Plans”).
Inadequately trained elected officials
was also viewed as a major barrier. It is
worth noting that the major barriers
AICP members identified are human
factors, and that AICP members
viewed financial and legal issues (such
as statutory authority under the
Municipalities Planning Code) and
intermunicipal cooperation issues as
of lesser importance.
What Actions Would Make
Planning More Effective?
Table 2. AICP Members: Barriers to Effective Planning
(1 is “not important” to 5 is “very important”)
Statewide
All three groups surveyed were asked
to rate the potential usefulness
different actions would have for
making planning and land use
regulations in Pennsylvania more
effective. There is a fair degree of
consistency among the three groups of
respondents. Several actions received
high ratings, including requiring
consistency between plans and land
use regulations, requiring that infrastructure and municipal services be in
place before or at the same time
development occurs (this is sometimes
called “concurrency”), and requiring
training for those involved with land
use planning (see Table 3).
Lack of leadership by elected officials
4.61
Elected officials’ lack of understanding of how to use planning &
regulations
4.31
Planning not integrated with decision-making process
4.30
Planning not tied to budget process
4.09
Inadequately trained elected officials
4.03
Comprehensive plans out-of-date
4.03
Land use ordinances out-of-date
4.01
Lack of inter-municipal cooperation
3.96
Planning commissioners don’t understand planning & regulations
3.92
Lack of professional planning staff
3.89
Limited understanding by the public
3.88
There are some interesting differences
in the responses, however, that likely
reflect the experience and perspective
of the different groups. Municipal
officials and county planning directors
rated increased funding (grants) for
planning and updated plans as very
important, which is consistent with
the high percentage of respondents
who said limited funds for planning
was a major barrier to effectiveness.
The AICP respondents rated funding
much lower than did the local officials, and instead viewed technical
details of planning as more useful;
four of their top five actions involve
requiring consistency between plans
and regulations, updates of plans, and
requiring infrastructure to be in place
before or at the same time development occurs. Part of this difference
likely occurs because the municipal
and county respondents must deal
with budget realities, and thus face the
question of where to find the resources for updating comprehensive
plans or regulations.
Poor/ inconsistent administration of land use ordinances
3.88
Inadequately trained planning officials
3.85
Lack of statutory authority
3.85
Land use ordinances poorly written
3.82
Municipalities Planning Code is inadequate
3.82
Lack of coordination of planning with water & sewer authorities
3.72
Strong property rights attitudes
3.68
Lack of funds/grants for planning
3.57
Inconsistency between county & municipal comprehensive plans
3.54
Limited citizen participation
3.53
Poor advice from solicitors, managers, professional planners, &
other advisors
3.46
Failure to involve the private sector
3.44
Inadequate instructions to planning agencies from elected officials
3.30
Difficulty dealing with state agencies
3.19
Overemphasis on land use regulations relative to planning
3.08
5
Table 3. Usefulness of Actions to Improve Planning and Land Use Regulations, on a scale of 1 (“not at all useful”) to 5 (“very
useful”). Top 5 rated items are highlighted and in bold.
Action
Municipal officials
County planning
directors
AICP members
Score
Score
Score
Rank
Rank
Rank
Special grants for rural planning
4.23
1
4.42
2
3.49
13
Require infrastructure to be in place before or at
the same time development occurs
4.20
2
4.26
6
4.18
5
Grants to update plans
4.15
3
4.33
4
4.08
8
Require training for zoning administrators
4.13
4
4.55
1
4.39
3
Require plan/regulations consistency
4.07
5
4.38
3
4.49
1
Require training for zoning boards
3.90
6
4.30
5
4.15
7
Require training for elected officials
3.89
7
4.15
7
4.16
6
Require training for planning commissioners
3.83
8
4.00
9
4.01
9
Reduce complexity of transportation impact fees
3.68
9
3.64
10
3.73
12
Impact fees for other services/facilities
3.63
10
3.56
12
3.81
11
Update regulations to conform to comprehensive plan
3.49
11
4.02
8
4.46
2
Mandate planning & land use regulations
3.46
12
3.66
9
3.92
10
Permit sketch plans as part of subdivision
review process
3.44
13
3.23
15
3.49
13
Regular update of comprehensive plan
3.36
14
3.63
11
4.30
4
Eliminate “curative amendments”
3.07
15
3.32
14
3.19
16
Require adjacent municipality review
3.01
16
3.15
16
3.48
15
Note that due to the size of the survey
samples, relatively close scores are not
statistically significantly different. This
means the absolute rank (“is this rated
number 2 or 3?”) is less important
than whether there are large differences in the scores themselves.
6
Implications
The survey responses indicated that
the majority of county planning
directors and AICP members believe
the barriers to effective land use
planning in Pennsylvania are peopleoriented, rather than stemming from a
lack of planning and implementation
tools or constraints imposed by the
MPC. Both the county and AICP
respondents viewed the understanding
of elected officials as one of the most
significant barriers to effective land
use planning. Lack of leadership was
similarly highly rated by the AICP
members. Requiring training for land
use planners was also among the
highly rated actions for improving
planning.
Funding clearly is an issue of concern
to those who must deal with budgets
at the county and municipal levels.
And yet, as with solutions to the
communication and collaboration
issues (see no. 9 in this series, “Collaboration and Communication”),
many of these barriers can be overcome at little dollar cost. The peopleoriented barriers—including leadership by local elected officials, using
plans in decision making, training,
and distrust between municipalities—
are problems of attitude and commitment rather than of financial resources.
7
Prepared by Timothy W. Kelsey,
associate professor of agricultural
economics; Stanford M. Lembeck,
AICP, professor emeritus of agricultural economics and rural sociology;
and George Fasic, AICP.
The opinions expressed in the publication are solely those of the authors.
The authors would like to thank the
Center for Rural Pennsylvania and the
Land Use Planning in Pennsylvania
Advisory Committee members for
their insights and assistance with the
project. For a full listing of the Land
Use Planning in Pennsylvania advisory
committee members, see Land Use
Planning #1: An Inventory of Planning
in Pennsylvania.
Visit Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences on the
Web: http://www.cas.psu.edu
Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research,
extension, and resident education programs are funded
in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
This publication is available from the Publications
Distribution Center, The Pennsylvania State University,
112 Agricultural Administration Building, University
Park, PA 16802. For information telephone (814) 8656713.
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work,
Acts of Congress May 8 and June 30, 1914, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Pennsylvania Legislature. T. R. Alter, Director of
Cooperative Extension, The Pennsylvania State
University.
This publication is available in alternative media
on request.
The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the
policy that all persons shall have equal access to
programs, facilities, admission, and employment without
regard to personal characteristics not related to ability,
performance, or qualifications as determined by
University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is
the policy of the University to maintain an academic and
work environment free of discrimination, including
harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits
discrimination and harassment against any person
because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap,
national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual
orientation, or veteran status. Discrimination or
harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be
tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University. Direct all
inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the
Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State
University, 201 Willard Building, University Park, PA
16802-2801, Tel 814-865-4700/V, 814-863-1150/TTY.
© The Pennsylvania State University 2001
Produced by Information and Communication
Technologies in the College of Agricultural Sciences
CAT UA357
3M9/01ps4418H
The Land Use Planning in Pennsylvania series will help you better
understand the current state of
planning and land use regulation in
Pennsylvania. It is based on a
comprehensive study of municipal
and county planning and land use
regulations, conducted by Penn
State Cooperative Extension with
the financial support of the Center
for Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative
agency of the Pennsylvania General
Assembly. The study included
surveys of municipal officials,
county planning agencies, and
members of the American Institute
of Certified Planners who reside in
Pennsylvania.
Through a series of 15 meetings, a
project advisory committee of 29
professional planners from
throughout Pennsylvania provided
feedback during the survey development, assisted with reviewing the
preliminary results, and reviewed
the investigators’ findings and
commentary.
The publications in the series focus
on state- and regional-level information. County-level information
from the study, that corresponds to
the publication series, is available at
the Land Use Planning in Pennsylvania Web site at
http://cax.aers.psu.edu/planning/
Land Use Planning in
Pennsylvania: Materials List
1. An Inventory of Planning in
Pennsylvania
2. Municipal Planning
Commissions
3. County Planning Agencies
4. Comprehensive Plans
5. Zoning
6. Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances
7. Training for Local Government
Officials
8. Barriers to Effective Planning in
Pennsylvania
9. Collaboration and
Communication
10. How Effective is Land Use
Planning in Pennsylvania?
11. How to Make Land Use
Planning Work for Your
Community